Why is it that the New York Times still cannot distinguish the moral differences between Palestinian terror and Israeli measures to defend its citizens?Take a look at this headline and accompanying photo from the NY Times’ August 20 story: Why did the NY Times purposely choose an emotive image of a Palestinian child’s funeral? Particularly as Israel was also burying its dead as a result of a terror attack. This sort of misplaced moral equivalence is typical of the NY Times which also states (emphasis added): Israel blamed The Popular Resistance Committees for Thursday’s attack and killed its top commanders in an airstrike later that day, igniting cross-border exchanges after months of relative quiet under an informal cease-fire with Hamas. So who exactly “ignited” the violence? According to the NY Times it wasn’t those who carried out Thursday’s terror attack but Israel for responding. In addition, the term “cross-border exchanges” implies, once again, some sort of moral equivalence between Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilian targets and Israeli responses.

...Also yesterday the BBC failed to mention 80 missiles shot at Israeli
civilians. PBS brought out some token Jew from Bloomberg to say that all
had been quiet this year. Dutch National TV also did something like
this.When they report the effect of any retaliation we don't have to
trust them either. The danger is when we believe them. Not a bad thing
when they lie like that. it kills their credibility. The good thing
about media when it gets imbalanced is they lose credibility to convince
real liberal Jews. Our biggest threat is ourselves. Send your considered comments to the New York Times – letters@nytimes.com – remembering to include your address and phone number if you want it to be published. - Honest Reporting